Oh, the best part was when I went to see the Nokia video, I watched a 10 second Samsung ad first, LOL

Hi,

To the original poster: Most generally, Model releases are broad releases that release the creator to use the images at will. That's means what it sounds like, you can pin and ink mustaches on the models and paint Nazi tattoos (as long as it is for commercial, not news work).

Uses one brand of camera masquerading as another for selling the latter's image quality isn't new, but it remains as goofy has it's always been. Truth generally finds it's way out and consumers generally find the whole thing preposterous.

About the only acceptable 'simulated' picture I can by off is the CTR screens due to refresh banding, but that's getting an update with LDC panels and LDE screens.

I truly wish Canon and Nikon would find a phone partner. They would likely screw it up, but geez.

My best,

Mike

jonnyapple said:
I thought I'd resurrect this thread to discuss Nokia's recent antics. They have some SLR footage "representing" what their image stabilization system does, but didn't tell anyone it wasn't shot with their new phone until someone caught their lie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19499879
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent
Almost unbelievable, if you ask me.

I saw the news earlier today on petapixel and immediately thought about this thread too :)

Personally though, I can see why Nokia did what they did and in a way they were sorta kinda justified.

If you think about it, the commercial in question was probably shot for national TV and I hardly think footage from a 10 MP phone camera would be suitable for TV exposure.

Who here trusts the photos the manufacturers put out in their advertisements ?

I know I dont. I wait to see what other reviewers found out and weigh their images and findings.

I thought I'd resurrect this thread to discuss Nokia's recent antics. They have some SLR footage "representing" what their image stabilization system does, but didn't tell anyone it wasn't shot with their new phone until someone caught their lie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19499879
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent
Almost unbelievable, if you ask me.

Well Put!

Pure capitalism can be bad because human greed not moderated by moral compassion for other people can cause great harm: for example; child labor and sweat shops during the industrial revolution and around the world today. Unfortunately, human greed must still be moderated with government regulation and moral influence. Hence, I think regulated and compassionate capitalism is the best economic system. No more cocaine in coca-cola. No more adding things to tobacco in order to intentionally addict people to cigarettes. No more semi-slave labor in third world countries. No more fake pills made in China and sold in British Pharmacies. No more approval of "there is a sucker born every minute" business ethics. Greed is not good, per se. It is only good when it increases goods and services without harming other people.

Nikon products must deliver as advertised (and be honestly advertised) and not at a lower level. Nikon must produce at lowest cost to the consumer but not through semi-slave or child labor. If Nikon cannot operate within the bounds of these business ethics we should all boycott its products.

iris chrome said:
TTJ, was the 5D mark I used before or after D3 came out? ;-)

I'm not sure - it's been 3-4 years ago. Not really something I keep track of details on.

TTJ, was the 5D mark I used before or after D3 came out? ;-)

". . . he intends only his own gain"

I see this as a legitimate motive to generate (not necessarily greedy) profit but I'll agree to disagree :-)

<... (if they were shot with a Canon on the other hand then yeah I might protest).

That's been done too! But with A 5D mkI. If you are around long enough you see everything. I know it wasn't the D7000 since it was a couple of years ago with the D3 and/or D700. Thread could have been purged in the site upgrade.

Advertisements and ad campaigns are hired out and the photographer/s responsible for making the product shots have full reign to use whatever they feel will get them the shot the customer wants IMO. Canon, Hassy, Mamy, Helga - I do not see a problem with any of it.

iris chrome said:

I think that capitalism is often misperceived with the motto "Greed is Good." Capitalism can actually be defined in many number of ways but maybe mostly is that it's the privatization of public sectors in order to generate profit. But now just because a private business is generating profit doesn't mean that it necessarily is greedy or unethical :)

The Second great work of 1776 - The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith - The father of Capitalism.

. . . every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society, as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is pro-rooting it . . . he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Smith, p. 423)

The idea within Capitalism is to accept that greed exists, and it should be allowed to be utilized to propel society forward. It questions and removes the idea that greed is unethical or wrong.

I'm not against it or making an argument either way, just worth noting where it's roots are. Have to use that rather useless knowledge I spent 5 years obtaining at some point. ;)

TaoTeJared said:
HA - That did happen, and more than once. That has been done so many times it hurts. Actually I think it was the D3/D300 & D700 product shots were done with a Hasselblad. I know it was discussed on here at some point - but as usual the search function is garbage and can't find it after 9 pages.

Here's a good recent one - 5D MkII took photos for the Sony cyber-cam.
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/07/08/canon-5d-mark-ii-strikes-again-captures-sonys-official-cyber-shot-promo-images/

TTJ, I believe this is one of the threads you're referring to: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2611. This one is about the D7000 product shots which are believed to have been shot with a Hasselblad. Now these here are plain product shots and I suspect that the other ones for D3, D300 and D700 were the same too. I don't have problem with that (if they were shot with a Canon on the other hand then yeah I might protest). Product shots are supposed to showcase the product itself and if that means using a different better performing camera then so be it.

The shots of Sony's camera in your link on the other hand are not exactly "product shots." The people in the background, the shallow depth of field and the whole composition of the photo carry the implication that the picture was shot with that particular camera. The poor unsuspecting consumer who sees the shots and buys the camera will fail miserably when he tries to recreate anything similar to those shots. But what I find most laughable (and a complete turn off) is that Sony didn't use their own FF cameras for the shots.

As far as huffing and puffing the shots taken, I actually don't have a problem if some degree of photo editing was performed on the shots (as long as they ware take with the equipment they're meant to represent). I admit that the line of ethics is a thin one in this instance but as long as the degree of editing is kept to a small, non-exaggerated and relatively easy to produce amount then how is that different from the days of film when photographers used different techniques (e.g., dodging and burning) to develop their negatives?

TaoTeJared said:
Capitalism is defined with the notion "Greed is Good". Greed and Ethics mixed together - I suppose you can put hot sauce on a cake...

I think that capitalism is often misperceived with the motto "Greed is Good." Capitalism can actually be defined in many number of ways but maybe mostly is that it's the privatization of public sectors in order to generate profit. But now just because a private business is generating profit doesn't mean that it necessarily is greedy or unethical :)

Peace.

A whole lot of simulations to expect the photo wasn't simulated as well. ;)

The Idealism in me wants to believe that the "sample" images on advertisements came from the camera they are trying to sell. The rational understanding of how difficult it is to make a POS P&S image to look that good settles in quickly. Especially when you know lighting was used for the photo. It can be done, but who in their right mind would bother doing that, not for just one, but all the cameras released each year? Talk about a PITA.

TaoTeJared said:
Capitalism is defined with the notion "Greed is Good". Greed and Ethics mixed together - I suppose you can put hot sauce on a cake...

HA - That did happen, and more than once. That has been done so many times it hurts. Actually I think it was the D3/D300 & D700 product shots were done with a Hasselblad. I know it was discussed on here at some point - but as usual the search function is garbage and can't find it after 9 pages.

Here's a good recent one - 5D MkII took photos for the Sony cyber-cam.
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/07/08/canon-5d-mark-ii-strikes-again-captures-sonys-official-cyber-shot-promo-images/

Strangely enough I don't have any problem with that example, or the Nikon product shots taken with a Hassleblad. To me they are pictures "of" other cameras, and are not being passed off as being taken "by" those cameras. Now if they showed you a scene from behind the camera, and then simulated your eye looking through the view finder, and then hearing a simulated shutter release, and then the screen being filled with the supposed captured shot, then I'd expect it to have been taken by the camera being shown.

This highlights the importance of reading the independent reviews of each camera and not relying upon the advertising photos.

You have to start with the assumption that almost all companies top priority is to sell product in order to grow and produce profit for those who own the company (including all of us shareholders who want to see the stock market rise!). WE want that profit. Profit is not evil. Most companies top priority is not to protect its customers. Thus, you have to take responsibility to protect yourself by reading independent reviews of products before you purchase them and not assuming advertising photos are 100% accurate representations of what that product will do.

The law allows advertisers to use certain amount of "puffing" ("this used car was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church") without liability. Is that unethical? To some, perhaps so. To me any lie is unethical. But exemplary ethics are not required by the law in our commercial transactions. You should see some of the crap I have received from e-Bay! There is a lot of "puffing" by e-Bay sellers.

iris chrome said:
I don't have a big problem with capitalism but I don't think that capitalism necessarily equates to lack of ethics. One thing is for sure though, when I go to buy a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II (if I ever), I'd be very disappointed (enraged) if the pictures Nikon used in its advertisements were taken with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or whatever.

Capitalism is defined with the notion "Greed is Good". Greed and Ethics mixed together - I suppose you can put hot sauce on a cake...

iris chrome said:
If this was an acceptable practice then is it also acceptable to use a stock photo from a medium format camera to advertise for D700 or D3s? When the product you're selling is the camera or the lens then using different equipment to take the photos and then use said photos to advertise the product is gross misrepresentation of the product even if the photos were just used in the manuals or inserts.

HA - That did happen, and more than once. That has been done so many times it hurts. Actually I think it was the D3/D300 & D700 product shots were done with a Hasselblad. I know it was discussed on here at some point - but as usual the search function is garbage and can't find it after 9 pages.

Here's a good recent one - 5D MkII took photos for the Sony cyber-cam.
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/07/08/canon-5d-mark-ii-strikes-again-captures-sonys-official-cyber-shot-promo-images/

iris chrome said:
I don't have a big problem with capitalism but I don't think that capitalism necessarily equates to lack of ethics. One thing is for sure though, when I go to buy a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II (if I ever), I'd be very disappointed (enraged) if the pictures Nikon used in its advertisements were taken with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or whatever.

Agreed (although I would doubt that would happen as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS2 is less sharp wide open and has very different bokeh) Something more common is a photo that was obviously taken on a 50mm or 85mm passing as a shot from a kit lens. What I find most deceptive are ads for cameras great in low light (then you use them and they suck) or an obviously film photo put forth as a digital.

Nikon overall doesn't seem to do that while it is not uncommon for canon (oddly more pros use canon too which should be the other way around...)

I don't have a big problem with capitalism but I don't think that capitalism necessarily equates to lack of ethics. One thing is for sure though, when I go to buy a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II (if I ever), I'd be very disappointed (enraged) if the pictures Nikon used in its advertisements were taken with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or whatever.

If this was an acceptable practice then is it also acceptable to use a stock photo from a medium format camera to advertise for D700 or D3s? When the product you're selling is the camera or the lens then using different equipment to take the photos and then use said photos to advertise the product is gross misrepresentation of the product even if the photos were just used in the manuals or inserts.

What I find funniest of all is that these are companies whose business is photography yet they wouldn't use photos taken with their own equipment to represent their brand. The fact that those photos were scoured from stock agencies is not an excuse. It's not that hard to check with the agency about the camera brand used to take the photos in the first place.

Anybody remember the Ad controversy in 1968 where an ad agency making an ad for Campbell's soup put marbles in the soup to make the noodles float? Even though that got outlawed, food dressers still make a horrid looking dish look great.

Not are the cameras not always tracked but many if not most of the shots are retouched. Nikon does one thing however with their web advertising by putting up shots taken (at least claimed to be) by the camera they go next to. However like any other large company they usually go to an AD and design agency for the manuals, packaging, and print/external web ads. Often a designer at an agency buys stock photos for the job if they think that they would sell the product better.

Ironically I think the shot of the 2 girls is on film so in a way it is even a bigger "fallacy" because it is not even a digital photograph. Also many ads feature photographs created with fast lenses and in conditions that the camera would handle more poorly...

Although it crosses a "perceived expectations" boundary, I don't see an issue with ethics here. Ethics are morals, morals are virtues and no harm or ill intent is done to anyone. It's a stock photo - who do you thinks buys them? Everyone does!

I think is says more how our assumptions are misplaced at times. I see it as no different then a photo for an add of a stage performance coming to town. It's not in the theater they will be playing in, usually it is of the Broadway cast and not the cast that is coming, the stage backgrounds have changed since it is a smaller show, and it was taken 10 years ago.

The image they use is of a performance that is similar to what you will see. That can be said about the stock image that is referred to here. I'm willing to bet it is a stock image that comes free with a software package with no rights reserved. It's cheap to use, and they don't have to check with anyone to use it.

Every company does it. If you really want to be shocked, go back and look at adds for the digi cams 6-7 years ago. 3.1mp digi cams did not make the photo of some kid blowing out the candles of a birthday cake that was a huge 60" poster add.

iris chrome said:
So the end justifies the means the means, huh? ;-)

Now this here is different than bigmacs not looking like their pictures. This would be a quality control issue at most and is much less severe. What Sony and Olympus have done with that picture would be like you going into a McDonald's and seeing a picture of a whopper but when you order one you get a bigmac instead. Technically it's a bait and switch. They advertised one thing but are selling another.

I'll play the devil's advocate. Why would it be the subject who gets permanent rights? Why not the photographer? After all, it was the photographer with his equipment and through his vision that made the image possible in the first place. Anybody could have taken a picture of the twin girls. Very few can make that picture sell.

iris chrome said:
So the end justifies the means the means, huh? ;-)

Now this here is different than bigmacs not looking like their pictures. This would be a quality control issue at most and is much less severe. What Sony and Olympus have done with that picture would be like you going into a McDonald's and seeing a picture of a whopper but when you order one you get a bigmac instead. Technically it's a bait and switch. They advertised one thing but are selling another.

I'll play the devil's advocate. Why would it be the subject who gets permanent rights? Why not the photographer? After all, it was the photographer with his equipment and through his vision that made the image possible in the first place. Anybody could have taken a picture of the twin girls. Very few can make that picture sell.

This is a very interesting discussion. And it can be taken past the medium of photography, but art in general. I would postulate that in theory it should be based on situation. For example, if someone paid a photographer to take a picture of them doing a specific thing, such as dancing, then it is both the photographer and the dancer that bring value to the photograph. It may have been the photographers skill and talent, but it might have been the subjects idea. In situations like this, I'm not sure you can completely separate them.

Many gifted artists realize that the subject matter is very important, and that while the artist (photographer) has vision, they cannot completely discount the vision of the subject either.

I realize that in reality, it would be impossible to have such a situational law.

iris chrome said:
So the end justifies the means the means, huh? ;-)

Now this here is different than bigmacs not looking like their pictures. This would be a quality control issue at most and is much less severe. What Sony and Olympus have done with that picture would be like you going into a McDonald's and seeing a picture of a whopper but when you order one you get a bigmac instead. Technically it's a bait and switch. They advertised one thing but are selling another.

I'll play the devil's advocate. Why would it be the subject who gets permanent rights? Why not the photographer? After all, it was the photographer with his equipment and through his vision that made the image possible in the first place. Anybody could have taken a picture of the twin girls. Very few can make that picture sell.

Notice how I didn't say anything about whether or not it was ethical.

Of course it isn't ethical!

But that's what the advertising company is paid to do right?

If you thought about ethics all the time... capitalism would crumble. Apparently that happens at Olympus. :D

I will crawl down from the tree I apparently fell out of the last time and chime in to say I agree with iris chrome.

I do marketting at a fortune 500 company and customer's trust in the product and company is far more important than making a quick sale. Any image that is advertising a specific product and would be construed by it's audience as being output from the product is definately wrong. But alot of marketting is done by people who don't know products, customers or their markets so not surprising to me.

Regarding user manuals usually the documentation is driven on a tight schedule tied to the product release so alot of content is rushed or reused. If the image is just to demonstrate a concept (wide angle vs. telephoto or lighting) I think it's fair game to use other images since it is essentially a textbook section. I haven't looked at my Nikon manuals as much as I should have but I doubt they shoot every image in there each time they update a point and click (although they may just use cartoons to avoid that issue). If it's on the cover next to the product as though it is what you get with the product, I would say it is misleading.

Re: Anaxagora's comment, you are talking about consent of the subject for publication to avoid people's privacy or rights as a model being trounced?-- Vanessa Hudgen's texts and Marilyn Monroe's "early work" comes to mind-- I can't imagine Nat Geo going back to the Afghan girl every time they want to make a calendar or CNN trying to track down Qadaffi's kids to get their consent to show his last moments in torture.

Okay, I'll go back up my tree again...

NSXType-R said:
The job of advertising is to get you to buy their product. It doesn't matter what means they use to entice you.

So the end justifies the means the means, huh? ;-)

Now this here is different than bigmacs not looking like their pictures. This would be a quality control issue at most and is much less severe. What Sony and Olympus have done with that picture would be like you going into a McDonald's and seeing a picture of a whopper but when you order one you get a bigmac instead. Technically it's a bait and switch. They advertised one thing but are selling another.

Anaxagoras said:
OK, radical suggestion for debate. - By law, copyright of an image should always be joint between photographer and subject. The photographer can release/sell his interest in the image, but the subject's rights are permanent.

I'll play the devil's advocate. Why would it be the subject who gets permanent rights? Why not the photographer? After all, it was the photographer with his equipment and through his vision that made the image possible in the first place. Anybody could have taken a picture of the twin girls. Very few can make that picture sell.

The job of advertising is to get you to buy their product. It doesn't matter what means they use to entice you.

Yes that's what I mean Sevencrossing! :-)